Eur. Phys. J.
C (2016) 76:479
DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4318-z
Regular Article - Theoretical Physics
The impact of the photon PDF and electroweak corrections
on t t̄ distributions
D. Pagani1, I. Tsinikos1, M. Zaro2,3,a
1 Centre for Cosmology, Particle Physics and Phenomenology (CP3), Université Catholique de Louvain, Chemin du Cyclotron 2,
1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
2 Sorbonne Universités, UPMC University Paris 06, UMR 589, LPTHE, 75005 Paris, France
3 CNRS, UMR 7589, LPTHE, 75005 Paris, France
Received: 16 June 2016 / Accepted: 12 August 2016 / Published online: 31 August 2016
© The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract We discuss the impact of EW corrections on dif-
ferential distributions in top-quark pair production at the
LHC and future hadron colliders, focussing on the effects
of initial-state photons. Performing a calculation at Next-to-
Leading Order QCD+EW accuracy, we investigate in detail
the impact of photon-initiated channels on central values as
well as PDF and scale uncertainties, both at order αs α and
αs2 α. We present predictions at 13 and 100 TeV, and pro-
vide results for the 8 TeV differential measurements per-
formed by ATLAS and CMS. A thorough comparison of
results obtained with the NNPDF2.3QED and CT14QED
PDF sets is performed. While contributions due to the photon
PDF are negligible with CT14QED, this is not the case for
NNPDF2.3QED, where such contributions are sizeable and
show large PDF uncertainties. On the one hand, we show that
differential observables in top-pair production, in particular
top-quark and t t¯ rapidities, can be used to improve the deter-
mination of the photon PDF within the NNPDF approach. On
the other hand, with current PDF sets, we demonstrate the
necessity of including EW corrections and photon-induced
contributions for a correct determination of both the central
value and the uncertainties of theoretical predictions.
1 Introduction
The production of a pair of top quarks (t t¯) is one of the
key processes in the physics program at the LHC. On the
one hand, this process is an ideal testing ground for strong
interactions, which can be probed in the perturbative regime,
and more in general for the standard-model (SM) interac-
tions. On the other hand, because the experimental signa-
tures emerging from t t¯ production can feature leptons, miss-
a e-mail:
marco.zaro@cern.ch
ing transverse energy and (b)-jets, this process enters as a
background in several experimental analyses and searches,
notably those related to the Higgs boson and new physics. The
study of t t¯ production gives also access to many of the top-
quark properties and can be exploited for the determination
of the parton-distribution functions (PDFs) of the proton [1–
3]. Furthermore, since the top quark is the heaviest particle
in the SM, it is often a proxy to new physics in beyond-the-
standard-model (BSM) scenarios. Thus, t t¯ production can be
exploited to precisely test SM predictions as well as to search
for or put constraints on BSM interactions.
For these reasons, a proper modelling of the t t¯ signal and
a sound understanding of all effects that can lead to distor-
tions in the distributions are mandatory. This explains the
great efforts which have been made in order to improve the
accuracy of theoretical predictions: inclusive and differen-
tial cross sections have been calculated up to next-to-next-to-
leading-order (NNLO) accuracy in QCD [4,5], and including
soft gluon effects up to next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic
(NN-LL) accuracy [2,6–16]. Notably, higher-order QCD cor-
rections lead to the reduction of scale uncertainties down to
very few percents. At this level of accuracy effects due to elec-
troweak (EW) corrections cannot be neglected, especially
for differential distributions, where the expected hierarchy
between the strong and electroweak interactions (αs  α)
may not be respected. On the one hand, when large scales are
probed (Q  m W ), the so-called Sudakov logarithms ren-
der EW corrections large and negative. On the other hand,
EW corrections receive also contributions from channels that
feature photons in the initial state, thus they depend on the
PDF of the photon. As we will show in this work, the impact
of photons in the initial state strongly depends on the PDF
set employed and can give a positive contribution of non-
negligible size, leading to possible compensations of the cor-
rections induced by Sudakov logarithms.
123
479 Page 2 of 20
While weak [17–25], QED [26] and EW (weak+QED)
[27–30] corrections to t t¯ production at hadron colliders have
been known for quite some time and the effect of Sudakov
logarithms has been quantified and studied, the impact of
photon-induced subprocesses has been addressed only in [26]
for only the gγ → t t¯ channel at LO and using the only PDF
set with the photon distribution available at that time, i.e.,
MRST2004QED [31].
In this work we (re-)evaluate, besides the NLO QCD cor-
rections, the complete set of NLO EW corrections to top-
quark pair production and carefully assess their impact on
differential distributions for proton–proton collisions at 8,
13 and 100 TeV centre-of-mass energy. For the first time,
photon-induced contributions are taken into account both at
O(αs α), from the gγ -channel at tree level, and at O(αs2 α),
from the gγ as well as the qγ (q̄γ ) initial states arising
in the NLO EW corrections. For all the results presented
here, the calculation has been performed within the Mad-
Graph5_aMC@NLO framework [32], thanks to an extension
of the code that allows one to automatically calculate NLO
QCD and EW corrections [33,34]. In order to have a reliable
estimate of the photon-induced contribution and of its uncer-
tainties, we evaluate the impact of electroweak corrections
with both the NNPDF2.3QED [35] and the CT14QED [36] PDF
sets, the only modern sets that include LO QED contribution
in the DGLAP evolution and, with very different assump-
tions and strategies in the extraction from data, the photon
distribution.1
We show that, besides higher-order QCD corrections, it is
also necessary to take into account EW corrections, including
photon-induced contributions, for a correct determination of
both the central value and the uncertainty of theoretical pre-
dictions. This is particularly important in the context of the
ongoing discussion of NLO-accurate event generators and
the compatibility with experimental data for the pT (t) dis-
tribution at the LHC 8-TeV measurements [39] and in view
of the measurements at 13 TeV. Furthermore, we show that
differential observables in top-pair production, in particular
top-quark and t t¯ rapidities, can be used to improve the deter-
mination of the photon PDF within the NNPDF approach,
while in the CT14QED approach t t¯ production is not sensitive
to the photon-induced contributions.
The structure of our paper is as follows: in Sect. 2 we
present the framework employed to perform our calcula-
tion and discuss relevant input parameters. In Sect. 3 we
discuss differences among existing PDF sets which pro-
vide a photon distribution (NNPDF2.3QED, CT14QED and the
older MRST2004QED set). We describe the different theoreti-
cal approaches employed in the sets, and we compare central
values and uncertainties for the photon PDF and the parton
1 We acknowledge that two new studies of the determination of the
photon PDF [37,38] have appeared during the publication of our work.
123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479
luminosities relevant for our calculation. In Sect. 4 we show
predictions at 13 and 100 TeV, and we compare results with
and without the contribution of photon-induced processes
and using the NNPDF2.3QED or the CT14QED PDF set. In
Sect. 5 we analyse the impact of EW corrections and the pho-
ton PDF for specific measurements performed by ATLAS and
CMS at 8 TeV. We compare the usage of NNPDF2.3QED with
a standard modern set with QCD-only partons and DGLAP
evolution. We give our conclusions and an outlook in Sect. 6.
2 Calculation setup and input parameters
The calculation has been performed in a completely auto-
mated way and we do not describe here the technical details;
they can be found in [33,34], where the t t¯ H process has been
calculated in the same framework. In the following, we only
want to match the notation of this paper to the one intro-
duced in [33] and precisely define the quantities included in
our calculation, specifying those that depend on the photon
PDF.
In the case of pp → t t¯ process a generic observable  t t¯
can be expanded simultaneously in the QCD and EW cou-
pling constants as

 t t¯(αs , α) = αsm α n m+n,n . (2.1)
m+n≥2
Following this notation, one can separate the LO (m +n = 2)
and NLO (m + n = 3) contributions as follows:
t t¯
LO (αs , α) = αs2 2,0 + αs α2,1 + α 2 2,2
≡ LO,1 + LO,2 + LO,3 ,
¯
NLO
tt
(αs , α) = αs3 3,0 +αs2 α3,1 +αs α 2 3,2 +α 3 3,3
≡ NLO,1 + NLO,2 + NLO,3 + NLO,4 .
(2.2)
In our results we include the LO,1 , LO,2 , NLO,1 and
NLO,2 terms. We checked that the remaining terms are sub-
leading as expected, giving results of the order or below 1 %
of the LO,1 contribution both in the total cross section and
at the differential level. In order to help the reader we further
define the quantities
LO QCD ≡ LO,1 , NLO QCD ≡ NLO,1 , (2.3)
LO EW ≡ LO,2 , NLO EW ≡ NLO,2 , (2.4)
QCD ≡ LO QCD + NLO QCD , (2.5)
EW ≡ LO EW + NLO EW , (2.6)
QCD+EW ≡ QCD + EW . (2.7)
In the following text by the term “EW corrections” we
will in general refer to the quantity EW , while we will
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479
use “NLO EW corrections” for NLO EW . At variance with
Refs. [33,34], in our calculation we do not consider the effect
due to the heavy-Boson-radiation (HBR). Although the LO
cross sections of pp → t t¯V , V = W ± , Z , H processes
may in principle contribute at the same perturbative order
of NLO EW to the inclusive t t¯ production, in this work we
assume that t t¯ and t t¯V final states can always be distin-
guished.
The quantities that depend on the photon PDF are LO EW
and NLO EW . The gγ → t t¯ process contributes to LO EW
and to NLO EW . In addition, NLO EW receives contribu-
tions from the qγ → t t¯q and q̄γ → t t¯q̄ processes at the
tree level, which feature initial-state singularities that have
to be subtracted. As in the case of q q̄ → t t¯γ processes,
the subtracted QED singularities are taken into account in
the DGLAP evolution in MRST2004QED, NNPDF2.3QED and
CT14QED. Thus, for theoretical consistency, these three PDF
sets should be preferred whenever NLO EW corrections are
computed. However, since the QED accuracy of DGLAP
evolution is only LO in all the three PDF sets, one could not
technically claim at the moment NLO QED and thus NLO
EW accuracy for hadronic predictions. Even before consider-
ing the numerical results in Sects. 4 and 5, this issue points to
the necessity of a better determination of the photon PDF by
means of fits which include NLO QED effects in the DGLAP
evolution [40,41].
Our calculation is performed using the following input
parameters:
m t = 173.3 GeV, m H = 125.09 GeV,
m W = 80.385 GeV, m Z = 91.1876 GeV, (2.8)
and setting all the other fermion masses to zero. All masses
are renormalised on-shell and all decay widths are set to zero.
The renormalisation of αs is performed in the five-flavour
scheme, while EW parameters are chosen in the G μ -scheme,
with
G μ = 1.1663787 · 10−5 GeV−2 . (2.9)
Since NLO EW corrections of O(αs2 α) to t t¯ hadroproduc-
tion do not involve the renormalisation of α, the choice of a
different EW scheme will not change our results in a visible
way. The CKM matrix is taken as the identity.
Unless differently specified, we use a dynamical reference
scale for the central values of the renormalisation (μr ) and
factorisation (μ f ) scales defined as
HT 1
μ= = m T,i , (2.10)
2 2
i However, we considered here only the NLO QCD + LO QED case,
where the sum of the transverse masses runs over all the
final-state particles. In all cases theoretical uncertainties due
Page 3 of 20 479
to missing higher orders are estimated via independent vari-
ations of μr and μ f in the interval {μ/2, 2μ}.
It is worth to note that the NNPDF2.3QED set is in the
variable-flavour scheme with six active flavours, which for
μ > m t is equivalent to the six-flavour scheme. On the con-
trary, in CT14QED the active flavours are five, leading to the
five-flavour scheme also for μ > m t . As we said, we renor-
malise αs in the five-flavour scheme for all the predictions;
for the comparison between the NNPDF2.3QED and CT14QED
results we simply change the PDF set without modifying
the calculation framework. The change of scheme can easily
be performed by following the recipe described in [42] and
based on [43], which, at NLO QCD + NLO EW accuracy,
has a direct effect only on the q q̄-induced contribution to
NLO QCD . We explicitly verified that the numerical impact
of such a change of renormalisation scheme is always much
smaller of the scale uncertainty and furthermore cancels in
any ratio involving NLO QCD both at the numerator and the
denominator. Thus, it has not any influence on the discussion
presented in this work.
3 Photon PDF and parton luminosities
In this section we discuss in some detail the different mod-
elling of the photon PDF in the NNPDF2.3QED, CT14QED2 and
MRST2004QED sets.
Although for all the three PDF sets the DGLAP evolution
is performed at NLO QCD + LO QED accuracy,3 very differ-
ent and crucial assumptions underlie the determination of the
photon PDF γ (x, Q). These differences mainly concern the
following three aspects. First, the ansatz for γ (x, Q) at the
initial scale Q = Q 0 . Second, the different datasets which
are used in the fit. Third, the practical implementation of the
DGLAP evolution from the initial scale Q 0 to the scale Q.
In Fig. 1 we show the photon PDF for the different sets
at the scales Q = (3, 173, 5000) GeV. As can be seen, these
assumptions affect the dependence on x and Q for both the
central value and the uncertainty band.4 The main reasons
2 CT14QED provides two kinds of sets, one with only the incoherent
component of the photon PDF and another one with both the coherent
and the incoherent components. In our work we have used the first set.
We have checked that the inclusion of the coherent component in the
photon PDF does not significantly alter our findings. The predictions
γ
obtained with the photon PDF with momentum fraction p0 = 0.00 %
including both components are very similar, in the x and Q ranges
relevant for our study, to those from the incoherent-only photon PDF
γ
with p0 = 0.14 %.
3 In the case of NNPDF2.3QED, PDFs at NNLO QCD + LO QED
accuracy as well as at LO QCD + LO QED accuracy are also available.
consistently with the other PDF sets discussed.
4 The red dotted curve labelled as APFEL_NN23 will be explained
after in the text.
123
479 Page 4 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479

101 101 101

Photon PDF comparison, Q=3 GeV Photon PDF comparison, Q=173 GeV Photon PDF comparison, Q=5000 GeV

100 100 100

10-1 10-1 10-1

x f(x)

x f(x)

x f(x)
10-2 10-2 10-2
NNPDF2.3 NNPDF2.3 NNPDF2.3
APFEL_NN23 APFEL_NN23 APFEL_NN23
10-3 MRST2004 10-3 MRST2004 10-3 MRST2004
CT14 0.00 CT14 0.00 CT14 0.00
CT14 0.14 CT14 0.14 CT14 0.14
10-4 10-4 10-4
10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100
x x x

Fig. 1 Comparison of the photon PDF for MRST2004QED, CT14QED, NNPDF2.3QED and APFEL_NN23 sets at Q = 3 GeV, Q = 173 GeV
and Q = 5000 GeV

for the differences can be traced to the different assumption
for the photon PDF at the initial scale and in differences in
the QCD+QED evolution. In particular:
– Consistently with the approach pursued for coloured par-
tons, in NNPDF2.3QED no functional form is specified for
the photon PDF at the initial scale, γ (x, Q 0 ). The photon
PDF is only constrained to be positive. In a first step, PDF
replicas for all the partons are fit together from DIS-data
only. Afterwards, they are further constrained by Drell–
Yan data form the LHC Run-I at 7 TeV. At variance with
DIS, neutral-current Drell–Yan is sensitive to the photon
PDF already at LO, and it can put stronger constraints
on γ (x, Q 0 ). Because of the positivity requirement for
the photon PDF, the replicas distribute in a very non-
Gaussian way around the central value. The prescription
suggested in order to determine a 68 % CL uncertainty
band consists in the evaluation of the symmetric error
including 68 of the 100 replicas around the central value.
Since no model is assumed for the photon PDF and no
data are present for large x, in this region uncertainties
are very large and the central value alone can be mislead-
ing, leading even to an unphysical peak at very large x,
which can be seen in Fig. 1.
– The CT14QED and MRST2004QED sets are based on a com-
pletely different assumption for γ (x, Q) at the initial
scale Q = Q 0 . Since the amount of data for constrain-
ing the shape of the photon PDF is limited, γ (x, Q 0 ) is
chosen to be described by an ansatz; the photon PDF at
Q = Q 0 is assumed to be completely determined by the
valence quark distributions. Specifically, in CT14QED and
MRST2004QED the photon parameterisation at the initial
scale Q 0 GeV reads
f γ / p (x, Q 0 )
α 
= Au eu2 P̃γ q ⊗ u 0 (x) + Ad ed2 P̃γ q ⊗ d 0 (x) .
2π
In Eq. (3.1) P̃γ q ⊗ f 0 (x) corresponds to the convolu-
tion of the splitting function P̃γ q (x) with the so-called
“primordial” quark distributions f 0 (x). In the case of
MRST2004QED, f 0 (x) are valence-like model distribu-
tions, i.e., they are not those fitted within the global
MRST2004 [44] analysis. In the case of CT14QED, f 0 (x)
correspond to the initial up and down valence distribu-
tions from CT14NLO [45].
More importantly, in CT14QED Au is set equal to Ad
in order to obtain a dependence on a single parame-
ter. Conversely, inMRST2004QED , the coefficients Ai are

given by Ai = ln Q 20 /m i2 , where the m i are the “Cur-
rent Masses” (CMs) of the quarks (m u = 6 MeV and
m d = 10 MeV). Thus, the case of CT14QED is a generali-
sation of the original ansatz used in MRST2004QED, where
the photon PDF is simply determined by the CMs for the
up and the down quark. The CT14QED set leaves freedom
for the value of m i in the Ai coefficients, which can be
alternatively parameterised by the momentum fraction
pγ0 carried by the photon at the initial scale. The con-
straints on pγ0 and consequently on the photon PDF are
then obtained by fitting the ZEUS data [46] for the pro-
duction of isolated photons in deep-inelastic-scattering
(DIS), ep → eγ + X , a process which is sensitive to
the photon PDF already at LO. In this way, the constraint
γ
p0  0.14 % is set at 90 % CL for the photon PDF, at
the initial scale of Q 0 = 1.295 GeV. For this reason,
the uncertainty band in CT14QED corresponds to the area
γ γ
between the p0 = 0.14 % and p0 = 0 % predictions;
no central, or preferred value is given in this approach.
Since in MRST2004QED the photon PDF is simply deter-
mined from the quark PDF assuming CMs for the up and
the down quark, no uncertainty band is provided. More-
over, for this set, no constraints from data enter in the
determination of the photon PDF.
 – All three PDF sets implement the DGLAP evolution at
NLO QCD+LO QED accuracy. However, while the scale
(3.1) is evolved simultaneously with the same value for the

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479 Page 5 of 20 479

10-4 10-4 10-3

dL(g ) / dM2 comparison at 8 TeV dL(g ) / dM2 comparison at 13 TeV 10-4 dL(g ) / dM2 comparison at 100 TeV
10-5 Q=M 10-5 Q=M Q=M
10-5
10-6 10-6
10-6
10-7 10-7 10-7

10-8 10-8 10-8

dL / dM2

dL / dM2

dL / dM2
10-9
10-9 10-9
10-10
10-10 10-10 10-11
10-11 NNPDF2.3 10-11 NNPDF2.3 10-12 NNPDF2.3
APFEL_NN23 APFEL_NN23 APFEL_NN23
10-13
10-12 MRST2004 10-12 MRST2004 MRST2004
10-14
CT14 0.00 CT14 0.00 CT14 0.00
10-13 10-13
CT14 0.14 CT14 0.14 10-15 CT14 0.14
10-14 10-14 10-16
1.5 Ratio Q=M / Q=mt 1.5 Ratio Q=M / Q=mt 1.5 Ratio Q=M / Q=mt
1 1 1
0.5 0.5 0.5
0 0 0
Ratio over NNPDF2.3, Q=M Ratio over NNPDF2.3, Q=M Ratio over NNPDF2.3, Q=M
100 100 100
10-1 10-1 10-1
10-2 10-2 10-2
Ratio over NNPDF2.3, Q=mt Ratio over NNPDF2.3, Q=mt Ratio over NNPDF2.3, Q=mt
100 100 100
10-1 10-1 10-1
10-2 10-2 10-2
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 20 30 40 50
M [TeV] M [TeV] M [TeV]

Fig. 2 Comparison of the gγ luminosity for MRST2004QED, CT14QED, NNPDF2.3QED and APFEL_NN23 sets at 8, 13 and 100 TeV

QCD and QED evolution in CT14QED and MRST2004-
QED, in NNPDF2.3QED the two scales are run indepen-
dently. The effect from the different evolution can be
seen by comparing the plots in Fig. 1, which display
the same quantities at different factorisation scales. At
Q = 3 GeV the central values of the three sets are
different, although the CT14QED and NNPDF2.3QED pho-
tons are well compatible within the uncertainty. At large
Q, while CT14QED and MRST2004QED converge to sim-
ilar values, the prediction from NNPDF2.3QED is differ-
ent. This trend is particularly visible at small x and for
large scales, where the photon PDF mostly stems from
the quark densities via the DGLAP evolution. However,
it is worth to recall that a new correct implementation of
the coupled QCD+QED DGLAP equations is now also
available in APFEL [47] and has been described in [48]
in the context of the determination of new sets of PDFs
including also lepton members.5 In Fig. 1 we included
also a red dashed line labelled APFEL_NN23, which cor-
responds to the central value for the set denoted as “C2”
in [48]. This set is the same of NNPDF2.3QED at the initial
scale Q 0 = 1 GeV, but it is different at larger scales
due to the different treatment of the evolution. Indeed,
the photon PDF in APFEL_NN23 is very close to the one
of NNPDF2.3QED only at large x, while for small x and
large Q it converges to the values of CT14QED and MRST-
2004QED. This proves that the discrepancy between the
5 During the writing of this article also a new set NNPDF3.0QED
has been released [49] and it includes the correct DGLAP running at
(N)NLO QCD + LO QED accuracy.
different sets at small x and large Q is completely driven
by the different treatment of the DGLAP evolution.
In Fig. 2 we show the photon–gluon luminosity as a func-
tion of the invariant mass M for the three PDF sets consid-
ered at 8, 13 and 100 TeV, with the factorisation scale Q set
equal to M. In the first inset we show for every luminos-
ity the ratio of their values at Q = M and Q = m t , while
in the second(third) inset we show at Q = M(Q = m t )
the ratio of every luminosity over the corresponding central
value with NNPDF2.3QED. For the entire range in M consid-
ered at the three different proton-proton-collision energies,
the CT14QED and NNPDF2.3QED photon–gluon luminosities
are barely compatible or not compatible at all. The slightly
better compatibility with Q = m t is mainly due to the larger
uncertainty band in NNPDF2.3QED.
It is important to note that the behaviour of the photon
PDF at small x and large Q, the region where differences
among the PDF sets are the largest (see Fig. 1) and are deter-
mined by the different QCD+QED DGLAP evolution, is not
of particular interest for our study. Indeed, as can be seen in
Fig. 2, the APFEL_NN23 gγ luminosity is very close to the
NNPDF2.3QED one and inside its uncertainty band. The insen-
sitivity of our study to the different treatment of QCD+QED
DGLAP running is in principle expected for most of the pre-
dictions at the LHC, since large factorisation scales Q are
typically not correlated with small values of x. Moreover, at
small values of M, where small values of x can be probed,
the PDFs of quarks and gluons are much larger than the pho-
ton PDF, leading to a relative suppression of photon-initiated
contributions.

123
479 Page 6 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479

10-3 10-3 10-1

dL / dM2 comparison at 8 TeV dL / dM2 comparison at 13 TeV 10-2 dL / dM2 comparison at 100 TeV
10-4 10-4
10-3
10-5 10-5 10-4
10-6 10-6 10-5
10-6
10-7 10-7
10-7
dL / dM2

dL / dM2

dL / dM2
10-8 10-8 10-8
10-9 10-9 10-9
10-10
10-10 10-10
10-11
10-11 10-11 10-12
10-12 g Q=M g Q=mt 10-12 g Q=M g Q=mt 10-13 g Q=M g Q=mt
gg Q=M gg Q=mt gg Q=M gg Q=mt 10-14 gg Q=M gg Q=mt
10-13 10-13
NNPDF2.3 NNPDF2.3
23 10-15 NNPDF2.3
23
qq- Q=M qq- Q=mt qq- Q=M qq- Q=mt qq- Q=M qq- Q=m
t
10-14 10-14 10-16
1.5 Ratio Q=M / Q=mt 1.5 Ratio Q=M / Q=mt 1.5 Ratio Q=M / Q=mt
1 1 1
0.5 0.5 0.5
0 0 0
102 Ratio over g , Q=M 102 Ratio over g , Q=M 102 Ratio over g , Q=M
101 101 101
100 100 100
102 Ratio over g , Q=mt 102 Ratio over g , Q=mt 102 Ratio over g , Q=mt
101 101 101
100 100 100
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 20 30 40 50
M [TeV] M [TeV] M [TeV]

Fig. 3 Comparison of the gγ , gg and q q̄ luminosities for the NNPDF2.3QED set at 8, 13 and 100 TeV

In order to determine at which values of M the photon– is expected to be relevant. From these insets, the hierarchy
gluon luminosity is actually expected to be relevant in t t¯ between gg and q q̄ channels can also be easily derived.
hadroproduction, in Fig. 3 we show the photon–gluon, gluon– In conclusion, the different results for photon-induced pro-
gluon and quark–antiquark luminosities for NNPDF2.3QED cesses and consequently for EW corrections obtained with
sets at 8, 13 and 100 TeV. These plots will also become use- the different PDF sets discussed in this article have to be
ful to understand the dependence of EW /LO QCD on the attributed mainly to the different assumptions that underlie
definition of the scale.6 the determination of γ (x, Q) at the initial scale Q = Q 0 and
The solid lines refer to the luminosities with Q = M, the choice of the factorisation scale, but not to the different
with the uncertainty band shown only for the photon–gluon treatment of the DGLAP NLO QCD+LO QED evolution.
case. The same-colour dashed lines are the corresponding
quantities with Q = m t . The ratios between predictions with
Q = M and with Q = m t is shown in the first inset. The lumi-
4 Predictions at 13 and 100 TeV
nosities at Q = M are in general of the same order or smaller
than at Q = m t , with the exception of the 100 TeV case for
In this section we discuss the impact of the EW correc-
M  10 TeV. In particular at 8 and 13 TeV, in the range of
tions and the photon PDF on several distributions at 13 and
M  1 TeV the luminosities of gg and q q̄ strongly reduce
100 TeV. In particular, we focus on the top-pair invariant mass
at Q = M with respect to Q = m t , while the photon–gluon
m(t t¯), the transverse momentum of the top quark pT (t), and
luminosity is less sensitive to the value of Q. Since in the TeV
the rapidities of the top quark y(t) and t t¯ pair y(t t¯). Pre-
range the negative contributions from Sudakov logarithms in
dictions for the LHC at 13 TeV are shown in Figs. 4, 5, 6,
the gg and q q̄ channels and the positive photon–gluon con-
7, 8, 9, while those for a future circular collider (FCC) at
tribution tend to cancel each other, larger scales lead to larger
100 TeV are shown in Figs. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Unless
values of EW /LO QCD . This effect will be discussed both
stated otherwise, results are obtained with no cut imposed on
in Sect. 4 for predictions at 13 TeV and in Sect. 5, where the
the final-state particles.
QCD+EW /QCD ratio will be compared to the experimental
In each figure we show two plots for the same observable,
accuracy reached at the LHC measurements at 8 TeV. In the
displaying in the left plot, denoted as “no γ ”, predictions
second (third) insets we also show the ratios of the gg and
with the photon PDF artificially set equal to zero. The reason
q q̄ luminosities over the gγ luminosity at Q = M(Q = m t )
behind this choice is manifold. First of all, the comparison of
in order to better identify at which scales the gγ contribution
left and right plots allows one to gauge the impact of the pho-
6
ton PDF on both the central value and the PDF uncertainties
In our calculation there are also contribution from quark-photon initial
of the electroweak contributions. Furthermore, in the plots
states, however, as will be discussed in Sect. 4, their contribution is
small so we decided to exclude the corresponding luminosities from on the left it is possible to observe the impact of the Sudakov
the discussion in this section for the sake of clarity. logarithms, which can be hidden by the compensation given

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479 Page 7 of 20 479

- -
103 tt (μ=HT/2), LHC13, no γ LO QCD 103 tt (μ=HT/2), LHC13 LO QCD
2 QCD 2 QCD
10 10
QCD+EW QCD+EW
dσ/dpT [pb/bin]

dσ/dpT [pb/bin]
101 101
100 100
10−1 10−1

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
10−2 10−2
−3
10 10−3
−4
10 10−4
−5 −5
10 10
LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD
0.5 0.5
0 0
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc.
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc.
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. CT14 0.00 CT14 0.14 μ=mt
0.15 0.15
0 0
−0.15 −0.15
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
pT(t) [GeV] pT(t) [GeV]

Fig. 4 Differential distributions for the pT (t) at 13 TeV. The format of the plots is described in detail in the text

103 tt- (μ=HT/2), LHC13, no γ LO QCD 103 tt- (μ=HT/2), LHC13 LO QCD
2 QCD 2 QCD
10 10
QCD+EW QCD+EW
dσ/dm [pb/bin]

dσ/dm [pb/bin]

101 101
0
10 100
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
−1 −1
10 10

10−2 10−2
−3 −3
10 10
LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD
0.5 0.5
0 0
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc.
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc.
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0.15 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. 0.15 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. CT14 0.00 CT14 0.14 μ=mt

0 0
−0.15 −0.15
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
- -
m(tt) [GeV] m(tt) [GeV]

Fig. 5 Differential distributions for the m(t t¯) at 13 TeV. The format of the plots is described in detail in the text

by the photon-induced processes included in the plots on the display ratios of several quantities over the LO QCD central
right. Last but not least, whereas the EW corrections in the value. In the first inset we plot this ratio for the central values
right plots strongly depend on the PDF set used and may of LO EW , NLO QCD and NLO EW , i.e., the other perturba-
possibly change with future improved determination of the tive orders which we consider. The second and third insets,
photon PDF, the plots on the left display the subset of the respectively, present the QCD+EW /LO QCD ratio includ-
EW corrections that are expected to be stable under future ing the scale and PDF uncertainties for the numerator. In
PDF determination. the last inset we present the EW /LO QCD ratio with the
In each plot the main panel includes the distributions for PDF uncertainties for the numerator. All the results in the
LO QCD , QCD and QCD+EW predictions as defined in plots are obtained with the NNPDF2.3QED PDF set, with the
equations (2.3)–(2.7). The four insets below the main panel PDF uncertainty computed at the 68 % CL. However, plots on

123
479 Page 8 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479

103 tt- (μ=HT/2), LHC13, no γ LO QCD 103 tt- (μ=HT/2), LHC13 LO QCD
10
2 |y(t)|,|y(t-)| < 2.5 QCD 10
2 |y(t)|,|y(t-)| < 2.5 QCD
QCD+EW QCD+EW
dσ/dm [pb/bin]

dσ/dm [pb/bin]
101 101
0 0
10 10
−1 −1

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
10 10
−2
10 10−2
−3 −3
10 10
−4
10 10−4
LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD
0.5 0.5
0 0
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc.
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc.
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0.15 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. 0.15 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. CT14 0.00 CT14 0.14 μ=mt

0 0
−0.15 −0.15
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
- -
m(tt) [GeV] m(tt) [GeV]

Fig. 6 Differential distributions for the m(t t¯) at 13 TeV with |y(t)|, |y(t¯)| < 2.5 cuts applied. The format of the plots is described in detail in the
text

tt- (μ=HT/2), LHC13, no γ LO QCD tt- (μ=HT/2), LHC13 LO QCD

QCD QCD
QCD+EW QCD+EW
dσ/dy [pb/bin]

dσ/dy [pb/bin]
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
101 101

LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD
0.5 0.5
0 0
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc.
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc.
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0.03 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc.
0.03 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. CT14 0.00 CT14 0.14 μ=mt

0 0
−0.03 −0.03
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
y(t) y(t)

Fig. 7 Differential distributions for the y(t) at 13 TeV. The format of the plots is described in detail in the text

the right, including effects due to the photon PDF, also show in Sect. 3 this interval corresponds to the uncertainty band of
(in the last inset) the ratio EW /LO QCD computed with the CT14QED.
CT14QED PDF set.7 For this particular set two predictions are The first general feature that can be noticed in all the dis-
shown, which correspond to a momentum fraction carried by tributions for the LHC at 13 TeV is the different behaviours
the photon at the initial scale of 0 and 0.14 %; as explained of the EW corrections with NNPDF2.3QED and CT14QED in
the plots on the right. The effects induced by the photon PDF
with CT14QED is much smaller w.r.t. the case of NNPDF2.3-
7 Only for this ratio, also the LO QCD quantity has been evaluated with
QED. Indeed, by comparing the last inset in equivalent plots
the CT14QED PDF set.

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479 Page 9 of 20 479

tt- (μ=HT/2), LHC13, no γ LO QCD tt- (μ=HT/2), LHC13 LO QCD

2 2
10 QCD 10 QCD
QCD+EW QCD+EW
dσ/dy [pb/bin]

dσ/dy [pb/bin]
101 101

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
100 100
LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD
0.5 0.5
0 0
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc.
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc.
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0.1 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. 0.1 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. CT14 0.00 CT14 0.14 μ=mt

0 0
−0.1 −0.1
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
- -
y(tt) y(tt)

Fig. 8 Differential distributions for the y(t t¯) at 13 TeV. The format of the plots is described in detail in the text

tt- (μ=HT/2), LHC13, no γ LO QCD tt- (μ=HT/2), LHC13 LO QCD

m(tt-) > 1 TeV QCD m(tt-) > 1 TeV QCD
QCD+EW QCD+EW
100 100
dσ/dy [pb/bin]

dσ/dy [pb/bin]
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
1 LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD 1 LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD
0.5 0.5
0 0
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc.
1.5 1.5
1 1
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc. 2 (QCD+EW)LO QCD; PDF unc.
1.5 1.5
1 1
EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. CT14 0.00 CT14 0.14 μ=mt
0.05 0.05
0 0
−0.05 −0.05
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
y(t) y(t)

Fig. 9 Differential distributions for the y(t) at 13 TeV with the cut m(t t¯) > 1 TeV. The format of the plots is described in detail in the text

with (right) and without (left) photon-induced contributions,
it is easy to see that effects due to the CT14QED photon PDF
are essentially invisible, regardless of the momentum frac-
tion (in the 0–0.14 % range). Furthermore, by comparing the
first inset in the two plots of each figure, it is possible to
notice how the dominant contribution from photon-induced
processes originates from the LO EW contribution of the
gγ channel. As anticipated in Sect. 3, the qγ contribution is
negligible8 and will not be further discussed in the following.
Moreover, when we will refer to the effect of photon PDF,
unless differently specified, we will always understand the
case of NNPDF2.3QED PDF set in order to be conservative.
8 This statement could be done only a posteriori, after having per-
formed the calculation and cannot be generalised to other processes.
See for instance Ref. [50].

123
479 Page 10 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479

- -
tt (μ=HT/2), FCC100, no γ LO QCD tt (μ=HT/2), FCC100 LO QCD
4 QCD 4 QCD
10 10
QCD+EW QCD+EW
dσ/dpT [pb/bin]

dσ/dpT [pb/bin]
103 103

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
102 102

1 1
10 10

1.4 LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD 1.4 LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD
0.7 0.7
0 0
(QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc. (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc.
2 2
1 1
(QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc. (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc.
2 2
1 1
EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. CT14 0.00 CT14 0.14
0 0
−0.15 −0.15
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
pT(t) [GeV] pT(t) [GeV]

Fig. 10 Differential distributions for the pT (t) at 100 TeV. The format of the plots is described in detail in the text

tt- (μ=HT/2), FCC100, no γ LO QCD tt- (μ=HT/2), FCC100 LO QCD

4 4
10 QCD 10 QCD
QCD+EW QCD+EW
dσ/dm [pb/bin]

dσ/dm [pb/bin]

3 3
10 10

102 102
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
1 1
10 10

0 0
10 10

1 LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD 1 LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD
0.5 0.5
0 0
(QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc. (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc.
2 2
1 1
(QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc. (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc.
2 2
1 1
EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. CT14 0.00 CT14 0.14
0 0
−0.15 −0.15
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
- -
m(tt) [GeV] m(tt) [GeV]

Fig. 11 Differential distributions for the m(t t¯) at 100 TeV. The format of the plots is described in detail in the text

As can be seen in Figs. 4 and 5, at 13 TeV the photon- that the cancellation between Sudakov logarithms strongly
initiated contributions can compensate the Sudakov sup- depends also on the scale choice, thus the scale dependence
pression in the top-pair invariant mass and top-quark trans- of EW should also be taken into account as a source of
verse momentum distributions. At very large scales ( pT (t) > uncertainties. The origin of this dependence will be discussed
1.7 TeV or m(t t¯) > 3 TeV) their size is larger than the effect in detail in Sect. 5, in the context of the measurements at
due to Sudakov logarithms. In all the figures at 13 TeV, in 8 TeV.
the last inset of the plots on the right, we also included the In the last inset, the PDF uncertainties of the EW term
central value of the ratio EW /LO QCD with both quanti- alone are directly compared with the LO QCD PDF uncer-
ties evaluated at the scale μ = m t . This quantity indicates tainties, the grey band. In the tail of the pT (t) and m(t t¯)

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479 Page 11 of 20 479

104 104
tt- (μ=HT/2), FCC100, no γ LO QCD tt- (μ=HT/2), FCC100 LO QCD
QCD QCD
dσ/dy [pb/bin] QCD+EW QCD+EW

dσ/dy [pb/bin]
3 3
10 10

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
102 102
1 LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD 1 LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD
0.5 0.5
0 0
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc.

1 1
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc.

1 1

0.05 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. 0.05 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. CT14 0.00 CT14 0.14

0 0
−0.05 −0.05
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
y(t) y(t)

Fig. 12 Differential distributions for the y(t) at 100 TeV. The format of the plots is described in detail in the text

4 4
10 10
tt- (μ=HT/2), FCC100, no γ LO QCD tt- (μ=HT/2), FCC100 LO QCD
QCD QCD
QCD+EW QCD+EW
dσ/dy [pb/bin]

dσ/dy [pb/bin]

103 103
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
2 2
10 10

1 LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD 1 LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD
0.5 0.5
0 0
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc.

1 1
2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc. 2 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc.

1 1

0.05 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. 0.05 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. CT14 0.00 CT14 0.14

0 0
−0.05 −0.05
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
- -
y(tt) y(tt)

Fig. 13 Differential distributions for the y(t t¯) at 100 TeV. The format of the plots is described in detail in the text

distributions on the right, PDF uncertainties for separately
EW and LO QCD are of the same size. This is consistent
with the difference between the PDF uncertainty for the total
prediction QCD+EW with and without effects form photon
in the initial state, which is shown in the third inset and, in the
plots on the right, is much larger w.r.t the case of LO QCD .
Just for reference, we decided to show in the second inset the
ratio QCD+EW /LO QCD with scale uncertainties, which are
reduced w.r.t. the LO QCD case, the grey band. The effects
due to the EW corrections and the impact of the photon PDF
is in general smaller than the scale uncertainty of QCD+EW .
However, one should consider that the scale uncertainty is
further reduced to very few percents by NNLO corrections,
which have already been calculated [4,5]. Moreover, when
normalised distributions (dσ/σ ) are considered, even at NLO
accuracy scale uncertainties are strongly reduced. In Sect. 5
we will comment both effects for specific distributions mea-
sured at the LHC at 8 TeV by ATLAS and CMS, where we

123
479 Page 12 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479

−1 −1
10 - 10 -
tt (μ=HT/2), FCC100, no γ LO QCD tt (μ=HT/2), FCC100 LO QCD
−2 QCD −2 QCD
10 10
σ(pT(t) > pT,cut) [pb]

σ(pT(t) > pT,cut) [pb]

QCD+EW QCD+EW

−3 −3
10 10

−4 −4

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
10 10

−5 −5
10 10

−6 −6
10 10
LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD
1 1
0 0
3 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc. 3 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc.
2 2
1 1
3 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc. 3 (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc.
2 2
1 1
EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. CT14 0.00 CT14 0.14
0 0
−0.4 −0.4
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
pT,cut [GeV] pT,cut [GeV]

Fig. 14 Integrated distributions for the pT (t) at 100 TeV. The format of the plots is described in detail in the text

101 101
tt- (μ=HT/2), FCC100, no γ LO QCD tt- (μ=HT/2), FCC100 LO QCD
0 QCD 0 QCD
10 10
σ(m(tt-) > mT,cut) [pb]

σ(m(tt) > mT,cut) [pb]

QCD+EW QCD+EW
−1 −1
10 10

10−2 10−2
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
−3 −3
-

10 10
−4 −4
10 10

10−5 10−5
1 LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD 1 LO EW/LO QCD NLO QCD/LO QCD NLO EW/LO QCD
0.5 0.5
0 0
(QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc. (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; scale unc.
2 2
1 1
(QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc. (QCD+EW)/LO QCD; PDF unc.
2 2
1 1

0.3 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. 0.3 EW/LO QCD; PDF unc. CT14 0.00 CT14 0.14

0 0
−0.3 −0.3
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
mT,cut [GeV] mT,cut [GeV]

Fig. 15 Integrated distributions for the m(t t¯) at 100 TeV. The format of the plots is described in detail in the text

will also investigate the impact of EW corrections and of the the q q̄ channels featuring only s-channel diagrams at LO
photon PDF. QCD. Rapidity cuts suppress the gg contribution, as well
While pT (t) distributions do not change by requiring as gγ contributions, but also enhance the typical value of
|y(t)|, |y(t¯)| < 2.5, i.e. top and anti-top produced in the the partonic Mandelstam variables tˆ and û. Consequently,
central region of the detector, these cuts have an effect on with those cuts, we observe larger values for the Sudakov
predictions for high m(t t¯). This is shown in Fig. 6, which logarithms (plot on the left) and a similar behaviour for the
is equivalent to Fig. 5, but with |y(t)|, |y(t¯)| < 2.5 cuts. At photon-induced contributions. Moreover, we can notice that,
large invariant masses, tops are preferably produced in the as in the pT (t) distributions in Fig. 4, also in the tails of the
forward or backward region, due to the t- and u-channel dia- plots in Fig. 6 the ratio NLO QCD /LO QCD in the first insets
grams in the gg-channel, which is much less suppressed than decrease, at variance with Fig. 5, where cuts are not applied.

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479
This trend is correlated with the fraction of the cross sec-
tion originating from the gg initial state, which is decreasing
in the tail of pT (t) distribution and, only with rapidity cuts
applied, of the m(t t¯) distribution.
In Figs. 7 and 8 we show predictions for y(t) and y(t t¯)
distributions. EW corrections are quite flat in the plots on the
left, while in the plots on the right they are enhanced by the gγ
initial state in the peripheral region, especially for the y(t t¯)
distribution. In this region photon-initiated contributions and
their uncertainties become relevant since the photon PDF is
sampled at rather large x, where the suppression w.r.t. the
quark and gluon PDFs is reduced. At variance with the tail
of pT (t) or m(t t¯), where the gγ contribution is also size-
able, the cross section in the peripheral region is not largely
suppressed w.r.t. to the total cross section. For these reasons,
large-rapidity bins can be exploited to set additional con-
straints on the photon PDF in a theoretical framework such
as the one adopted in NNPDF2.3QED, while with an assump-
tion à la CT14QED the sensitivity on the photon PDF remains
very small. Given the large cross section in t t¯ production at
the LHC 13 TeV, in Fig. 9 we also show the same plots of
Fig. 7 with a m(t t¯) > 1 TeV cut applied. EW corrections
in the left plot are larger in the central region, where, due to
large values of the tˆ and û Mandelstam variables, the effect
of Sudakov logarithms is enhanced. Again, this effect can be
compensated by photon-induced processes as shown in the
plot on the right. As already observed for all the previous
distributions, only in the plots on the left the PDF uncertain-
ties related to EW are negligible, while they are sizeable in
the plots on the right. Also in this case the trend of the ratio
NLO QCD /LO QCD displayed in the first inset is correlated
with the fraction of the cross section originating from the q q̄
initial state, as discussed for Figs. 4 and 6.
It is worth to notice that while plots in Fig. 4 would be
identical in the case of pT (t¯) distributions, the transverse
momentum of the antitop, the y(t¯) distribution is different
from y(t) when QCD+EW terms are included, because of
the charge asymmetry [28–30,51]. However, we observed
the same qualitative behaviour for the photon PDF and the
EW corrections in y(t) and y(t¯) distributions. Moreover, the
gγ channel cannot give a contribution to the numerator of the
charge asymmetry (see also Ref. [52]), and all the other con-
tributions to the asymmetry have already been investigated
in Ref. [30].
The distributions that have been discussed for the LHC at
13 TeV are also presented for a FCC at 100 TeV, with larger
ranges for the abscissae.9 By comparing plots in Figs. 10,
11, 12, 13 with their corresponding ones at 13 TeV, it can be
noticed that the impact of the photon PDF is strongly reduced
at 100 TeV. In each figure, the plot on the right (with photons
in the initial state) does not exhibit any qualitatively different
9 We provided a few representative results also in [53].
Page 13 of 20 479
behaviour w.r.t. the plot on the left. The smaller impact of the
photon-induced contributions at 100 TeV w.r.t. the 13 TeV
case is due to the different range of x spanned in the PDFs;
keeping the hardness of the process fixed, a larger energy
of the hadronic collisions corresponds to probing smaller
values of x, where parton luminosities involving photons are
suppressed with respect to those involving QCD partons, as
shown in Fig. 3. For the same reason, the impact of the photon
PDF at the LHC at 8 TeV is even larger than at 13 TeV, as will
be discussed in the next session. Moreover, at 100 TeV, for
a given value of pT (t) or m(t t¯), EW corrections are slightly
smaller than at 13 TeV also in the plots on the left, i.e., without
considering photon-induced contributions.
In order to find a large contribution form the gγ initial state
at a FCC, it is necessary to probe very large scales. In Figs. 14
and 15 we respectively plot, using the same layout of the pre-
vious plots, the cumulative distributions σ ( pT (t) > pT,cut )
and σ (m(t t¯) > m cut ) with pT,cut up to 12 TeV and m cut up to
30 TeV. First of all, we recall that at a FCC it would be pos-
sible with 10 ab−1 integrated luminosity to probe such small
cross sections and large hard-scales. Thus, the following
discussion is not purely academic. Sudakov logarithms can
induce up to ∼ −40 % corrections for σ ( pT (t) > 12 TeV)
and ∼ −30 % for σ (m(t t¯) > 30 TeV), rendering EW cor-
rections not only important for precision physics, but essen-
tial for obtaining a sensible result. For precision physics,
Sudakov logarithms have to be considered also beyond the
NLO EW accuracy and possibly resummed. The central role
of EW corrections at a FCC at 100 TeV is not peculiar for the
t t¯ final state; it is a general feature for all the production pro-
cesses (see also the EW section in [53]). At such large scales,
also the gγ luminosity is not negligible, and indeed the size
and the PDF uncertainty of the EW corrections is very dif-
ferent in the left and right plots. Once again, the prediction
obtained with CT14QED is similar to the case where the pho-
ton PDF has been set to zero. As in the case of 13 TeV, we
observed similar changes in the tail of the m(t t¯) distribution
by applying the |y(t)|, |y(t¯)| < 4 cuts, i.e., mimicking the
expected coverage of the future detector. Sudakov logarithms
are enhanced, photon contributions are not visibly changed,
and the NLO QCD /LO QCD ratio in the first inset decreases
in the tail as observed in Fig. 14.
5 Impact on ATLAS and CMS measurements at 8 TeV
In this section we discuss the relevance of the photon PDF
and EW corrections for experimental measurements at the
LHC. Specifically, we will consider their impact on the anal-
yses already published both by ATLAS and CMS for the t t¯
differential distributions at 8 TeV.
We want to stress that our aim is not to perform a direct
comparison of the SM “best prediction” with experimental
123
479 Page 14 of 20
data. Indeed, at differential level, the best accuracy reached in
perturbative QCD is NNLO or NLO+NNLL. Terms beyond
NLO in QCD are not taken into account in this analysis, but
they are crucial both for a correct determination of the cen-
tral value and for reducing the scale uncertainty. Here, we
want to show that a reliable comparison between SM predic-
tions and experimental data in t t¯ production cannot be based
only on purely QCD corrections. Indeed, the contribution of
EW corrections, especially the uncertainty due to the photon
PDF and the scale choice, cannot be ignored and has to be
taken into account. In particular cases, such as the normalised
distributions discussed in the following, they can yield the
largest effect, playing a primary role in the determination of
precise SM predictions.
After the discussion and the results presented in the pre-
vious section, it is clear that EW corrections at 8 TeV are
expected to show a larger dependence on the photon PDF
w.r.t. the 13 TeV case. On the other hand, smaller cross sec-
tions and integrated luminosities may in practice not lead to
enough events to probe this effect. In order to evaluate their
real impact at the experimental level, we take into account
in our analysis both the theory uncertainties (scale and PDF)
and the errors from the experimental measurements. More-
over, this study serves also as a motivation to perform this
kind of analysis for future 13 TeV data, where larger cross
sections and luminosities should considerably decrease the
experimental errors.
In the following, we consider CMS data from Ref. [54],
which are based on the dilepton and lepton+jets events col-
lected with an integrated luminosity of 19.7 fb−1 . In partic-
ular, we focus on the distributions of the transverse momen-
tum and rapidity of the top quark,10 and of the rapidity of
the t t¯ pair. Moreover, we consider ATLAS data based on
lepton+jets events collected with an integrated luminosity of
20.3 fb−1 . Distributions for the top-quark transverse momen-
tum in the boosted regime are taken from Ref. [55], while
those for the invariant mass of the t t¯ pair, the absolute value
of the rapidity of the top and of the t t¯ pair are taken from
Ref. [56]. In the ATLAS analyses, part of the electroweak
corrections (the purely weak contribution calculated in [20])
has been taken into account via an updated version of Hathor
[57]. Thus, although the Sudakov enhancement has been
taken into account, the QED corrections and especially the
dependence on the photon PDF, which is a crucial aspect of
our discussion, have not been considered yet.
For each differential measurement of ATLAS and CMS,
we show two plots with the corresponding theoretical predic-
10 In the plots of this section, the pT (t) distribution is actually the
average of the distribution of the transverse momentum of the top quark
and antiquark, consistently with what has been done in the experimental
analyses. Similarly, the y(t) distribution is the average of the distribution
of the rapidity of the top quark and antiquark. However, differences with
real p(t) and y(t) distributions are in practice invisible.
123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479
tions obtained with the MMHT2014 PDF set [58] (plot on the
left), and with NNPDF2.3QED (plots on the right), respectively.
At variance with what has been done in Sect. 4, we do not set
the photon PDF to zero in the left plots, but we directly use a
PDF set that does not include the LO QED contribution in the
DGLAP running nor the photon PDF, as typically done in the
experimental analyses and in QCD-only predictions. In the
plots on the right we decided to use NNPDF2.3QED in order
to be conservative, since the effects due to the photon PDF
are the largest for this PDF set. We explicitly verified that, as
could be expected from the discussion in Sect. 4, using the
CT14QED PDFs or setting the photon PDF in NNPDF2.3QED
to zero, the relative corrections induced by EW , e.g. the
QCD+EW /QCD ratio, are the same as those obtained with
MMHT2014. Indeed the effect of the LO QED terms in the
DGLAP running, which is present in CT14QED and NNPDF-
2.3QED but not in MMHT2014, cancels in the ratio. On the
other hand, this effect can have an impact on the cross sec-
tion, especially on the LO QCD term, and it may be impor-
tant for a direct comparison with data. This is another reason,
besides the theoretical consistency, for which NNPDF2.3QED
or CT14QED should be in general preferred when NLO EW
calculations are performed.
In each plot we present our predictions for a specific
measurement, using three different definitions for the renor-
malisation and factorisation scales, i.e., μ = m(t t¯) (blue),
μ = HT /2 (as in Sect. 4, red) and μ = m t (green). In the
main panel of each plot we present the QCD+EW predic-
tions, without theory uncertainties, compared to data. In the
first inset we display the ratio of the QCD+EW over data,
including scale (light band) and PDF (dark band) uncertain-
ties linearly added. In the second inset we show the central
value of the ratio QCD+EW /QCD for the three different
scales and also the relative error in the measurement for each
bin, with the error bar centred around one. In the third inset
we zoom the PDF uncertainty already included in the main
panel. Specifically, we show the PDF uncertainty band of
the QCD+EW predictions with μ = HT /2 normalised to
their central value and we compare them again with the rel-
ative error in the measurement for each bin. Distributions
corresponding to CMS analyses [54] are shown in Fig. 16,
while ATLAS distributions taken from Refs. [55] and [56]
are shown in Figs. 17 and 18, respectively.
Before discussing each plot, it is important to note that
two different kinds of distributions are shown here, namely,
differential distributions (dσ ) and normalised distributions
(dσ/σ ).11 The m(t t¯) distribution in Fig. 17 and the boosted
pT (t) distribution in Fig. 18 are differential distributions,
while all the other plots actually display normalised distribu-
11 Consistently with what is done in the experimental analyses, we use
as σ the sum of the values of the bins of the distribution considered,
without including overflows.
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479 Page 15 of 20 479

tt- (QCD+EW, MMHT2014), LHC8 tt- (QCD+EW, NNDPF2.3QED), LHC8

−2 −2
10 data (CMS, arXiv:1505.04480) 10 data (CMS, arXiv:1505.04480)

(1/σ)dσ/dpT [1/GeV]

(1/σ)dσ/dpT [1/GeV]
- -
μ=m(tt) μ=m(tt)
μ=HT/2 μ=HT/2
μ=mt μ=mt
10−3 10−3

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
10−4 10−4

(QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc. (QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc.

1.2 1.2
1 1
1.04 (QCD+EW)/QCD data unc. 1.04 (QCD+EW)/QCD data unc.

1 1
0.96 0.96
QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc. QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc.
1.04 1.04
1 1
0.96 0.96
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
pT(t) [GeV] pT(t) [GeV]

tt- (QCD+EW, MMHT2014), LHC8 tt- (QCD+EW, NNDPF2.3QED), LHC8

data (CMS, arXiv:1505.04480) data (CMS, arXiv:1505.04480)
μ=m(tt-) μ=m(tt-)
μ=HT/2 μ=HT/2
(1/σ)dσ/dy

(1/σ)dσ/dy
μ=mt μ=mt
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
10−1 10−1

(QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc. (QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc.

1.1 1.1
1 1
0.9 0.9
(QCD+EW)/QCD data unc. (QCD+EW)/QCD data unc.
1.03 1.03
1 1
QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc. QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc.
1.04 1.04
1 1
0.96 0.96
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
y(t) y(t)

tt- (QCD+EW, MMHT2014), LHC8 tt- (QCD+EW, NNDPF2.3QED), LHC8

data (CMS, arXiv:1505.04480) data (CMS, arXiv:1505.04480)
μ=m(tt-) μ=m(tt-)
μ=HT/2 μ=HT/2
(1/σ)dσ/dy

(1/σ)dσ/dy

μ=mt μ=mt
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

10−1 10−1

(QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc. (QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc.

1.1 1.1
1 1
0.9 0.9
(QCD+EW)/QCD data unc. (QCD+EW)/QCD data unc.
1.04 1.04
1 1
QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc. QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc.
1.04 1.04
1 1
0.96 0.96
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
- -
y(tt) y(tt)

Fig. 16 Comparison of CMS data from Ref. [54] and NLO QCD+EW predictions computed with MMHT2104 (left) and NNPDF2.3QED (right)
PDF sets

123
479 Page 16 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479

tt- (QCD+EW, MMHT2014), LHC8 tt- (QCD+EW, NNDPF2.3QED), LHC8

0 data (ATLAS, arXiv:1511.04716) 0 data (ATLAS, arXiv:1511.04716)
10 - 10 -
μ=m(tt) μ=m(tt)

dσ/dm [pb/GeV]

dσ/dm [pb/GeV]
μ=HT/2 μ=HT/2
μ=mt μ=mt
10−1 10−1

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
−2 −2
10 10

1.4 (QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc. 1.4 (QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc.

1 1
0.6 0.6
1.04 (QCD+EW)/QCD data unc. 1.04 (QCD+EW)/QCD data unc.

1 1
0.96 0.96
QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc. QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc.
1.05 1.05
1 1
0.95 0.95
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
- -
m(tt) [GeV] m(tt) [GeV]

tt- (QCD+EW, MMHT2014), LHC8 tt- (QCD+EW, NNDPF2.3QED), LHC8

100 data (ATLAS, arXiv:1511.04716) 100 data (ATLAS, arXiv:1511.04716)
- -
μ=m(tt) μ=m(tt)
μ=HT/2 μ=HT/2
(1/σ)dσ/d|y|

(1/σ)dσ/d|y|
μ=mt μ=mt
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
10−1 10−1
(QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc. (QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc.
1.1 1.1
1 1
0.9 0.9
(QCD+EW)/QCD data unc. (QCD+EW)/QCD data unc.
1.03 1.03
1 1
QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc. QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc.
1.04 1.04
1 1
0.96 0.96
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
|y(t)| |y(t)|

tt- (QCD+EW, MMHT2014), LHC8 tt- (QCD+EW, NNDPF2.3QED), LHC8

0 0
10 data (ATLAS, arXiv:1511.04716) 10 data (ATLAS, arXiv:1511.04716)
μ=m(tt-) μ=m(tt-)
μ=HT/2 μ=HT/2
(1/σ)dσ/d|y|

(1/σ)dσ/d|y|

μ=mt μ=mt
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

10−1 10−1
(QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc. (QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc.
1.1 1.1
1 1
0.9 0.9
(QCD+EW)/QCD data unc. (QCD+EW)/QCD data unc.
1.03 1.03
1 1
QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc. QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc.
1.04 1.04
1 1
0.96 0.96
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
- -
|y(tt)| |y(tt)|

Fig. 17 Comparison of ATLAS data from Ref. [56] and NLO QCD+EW predictions computed with MMHT2104 (left) and NNPDF2.3QED (right)
PDF sets

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479
tions, which exhibit much smaller scale and PDF uncertain-
ties. Indeed, for normalised distributions both types of uncer-
tainties are calculated directly for the dσ/σ ratio, yielding
large cancellations between the numerator and the denomina-
tor. As we said, our aim is not to perform a direct comparison
of data and SM predictions, which would need QCD correc-
tions beyond the NLO. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note
how the scale uncertainty shown in the main panel and in
the first inset of the plots, which reflects the typical QCD
accuracy (NLO) of available Monte Carlo event generators,
is of the same order of the experimental precision for all
the distributions considered here. Thus, although NNLO and
NLO+NNLL have shown to reduce the dependence of the
predictions on the renormalisation and factorisation scale, a
few comments can be done about the scale choice for NLO
simulations. The plots for the m(t t¯) distribution in Fig. 17
suggests that m(t t¯) is not the natural scale for this process
and indeed it artificially leads to particularly large corrections
also beyond NLO (see Ref. [16]). Similarly, the discrepancy
between data and predictions observed in Ref. [5] at NLO
QCD for large pT (t), but not at NNLO QCD with fixed scale
μ = m t , can be simply reduced at NLO using the scale
μ = HT /2, as shown in the plots in the first line of Fig. 16.
The most important information of the plots is, however,
contained in the second and third insets. In the former we
compare the experimental precision with the relative cor-
rections induced by EW on the predictions at NLO QCD
accuracy via the ratio QCD+EW /QCD .12 In the latter we
compare the experimental precision with the relative PDF
uncertainties for the QCD+EW predictions. In the follow-
ing, we discuss these comparisons for every measurement
analysed here.
In the plots of the first line in Fig. 16, we can see that the
size of electroweak corrections is always smaller than the
precision of the experimental measurement for pT (t) distri-
butions. However, it is reasonable to expect that in the Run-II
at 13 TeV, with larger cross sections and higher luminosi-
ties, it will be possible to reach an experimental precision
such that this effect could be probed, as is also discussed in
Ref. [20] and supported by the first CMS analyses [59,60] on
13 TeV data collected with only 2.3 fb−1 integrated luminos-
ity. Nevertheless, it is important to note how results obtained
with MMHT2014 and NNPDF2.3QED are qualitatively differ-
ent; the cancellation between photon-induced contributions
and Sudakov logarithms at large pT (t) also strongly depends
on the factorisation scale used. This is particularly important
because the dependence of the QCD+EW /QCD ratio on
12 In the case of normalised distributions, we actually display the
ratio of dσ/σ with both numerator and the denominator evaluated
at QCD+EW accuracy over the same quantity at QCD accuracy
(dσ/σ )|QCD+EW /(dσ/σ )|QCD , in order to correctly identify the effect
of the electroweak corrections on the observable considered.
Page 17 of 20 479
the PDF set and on the central scale choice is of the same
order, or even exceeds, the scale uncertainty of the NNLO
QCD predictions, which is at the percent level.13 The PDF
uncertainties for QCD+EW predictions are smaller than the
experimental precision both in the right and left plot, although
slightly larger values appear in the NNPDF2.3QED case at large
pT (t) due to the photon-induced contribution.
The case of the y(t) and y(t t¯) distributions in the plots
in the second and third lines of both Figs. 16 and 17 clearly
shows the relevance of EW corrections and photon-initiated
processes for a trustworthy comparison of theory predictions
and data measurements at the LHC. As can be seen in the
first insets, scale uncertainties are smaller than the experi-
mental errors and, for the y(t) distribution, they are further
reduced to 1 % level or even less by NNLO QCD correc-
tions, thus they are negligible. The theory uncertainties, as
can be noted in the second insets, are completely dominated
by PDF uncertainties. What is not negligible is the impact of
the electroweak corrections. In the case of MMHT2014, with-
out photon-induced processes, EW corrections are flat and
thus their impact cancels in the dσ/σ ratio. On the contrary,
in the case of NNPDF2.3QED, for large rapidities their impact
is comparable to the experimental error, with a negligible
dependence on the factorisation scale. Also, the enhancement
in the peripheral region induces a small negative effect in the
central region because of the fixed normalisation. PDF uncer-
tainties for the QCD+EW are smaller or of the same order of
the experimental precision in the case of MMHT2014, while
they are larger in the case of NNPDF2.3QED for large rapidi-
ties. All these effects are more prominent in the case of the
ATLAS measurement (Fig. 17), where experimental errors
are smaller. It is also worth to note that for rapidity distribu-
tions EW corrections do not receive Sudakov enhancements
and, at this level of accuracy, besides the photon-induced
contributions, a priori QED effects cannot be neglected.
The situation for the m(t t¯) distribution in the first line of
Fig. 17 is very similar to the one for the pT (t) distribution,
which has been already discussed for the CMS measurement
(first line of Fig. 16) and it is also shown for the boosted
regime in the ATLAS analysis in Fig. 18. However, these
two differential distributions exhibit much larger scale uncer-
tainties than the normalised pT (t) distribution in Fig. 16. The
inclusion of NNLO QCD corrections is crucial in order to pin
down the scale uncertainties below the 5 % level, pointing to
the necessity of a combination of EW and NNLO QCD cor-
rections for a reliable comparison of theory predictions and
data measurements at the LHC. In all the pT (t) and m(t t¯)
distributions with the NNPDF2.3QED set, the dependence of
13 The size of NNLO scale uncertainties quoted in this section are taken
from Ref. [5]. In particular the authors of Ref. [5] explicitly considered
the same pT (t) and the y(t) CMS distributions of Fig. 16 that are dis-
cussed in detail in the text.
123
479 Page 18 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479

10
−1 tt- (QCD+EW, MMHT2014), LHC8 10
−1 tt- (QCD+EW, NNDPF2.3QED), LHC8
data (ATLAS, arXiv:1510.03818) data (ATLAS, arXiv:1510.03818)
μ=m(tt-) μ=m(tt-)
dσ/dpT [pb/GeV]

dσ/dpT [pb/GeV]
−2 −2
10 μ=HT/2 10 μ=HT/2
μ=mt μ=mt

10−3 10−3

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
10−4 10−4

1.4 (QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc. 1.4 (QCD+EW)/data; scale+PDF unc.

1 1
0.6 0.6
(QCD+EW)/QCD data unc. (QCD+EW)/QCD data unc.
1 1
0.9 0.9
(LO QCD+EW)/(LO QCD) (LO QCD+EW)/(LO QCD)
1 1
0.9 0.9
1.1 QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc. 1.1 QCD+EW; PDF unc. data unc.

1 1
0.9 0.9
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
pT(t) [GeV] pT(t) [GeV]

Fig. 18 Comparison of ATLAS data from Ref. [55] and NLO QCD+EW predictions computed with MMHT2104 (left) and NNPDF2.3QED (right)
PDF sets

the EW corrections on the factorisation scale is also particu- and q q̄ contributions to LO QCD , the gγ contributions to
larly evident, and in the following we describe the reason of EW are positive. Consequently, the cancellation of this two
this feature. classes of contributions both entering EW depends on μ.
The dependence of the size (and possibly of the sign) of All these effects are present in any distribution on the right
EW corrections on the scale choice can be traced to differ- with NNPDF2.3QED. However, in the rapidity distributions
ent effects. First of all, unlike QCD corrections, EW cor- there is no Sudakov enhancement and m t ∼ HT /2, espe-
rections to q q̄ and gg initial states do not involve neither cially for large rapidities, so only a small difference for the
αs renormalisation nor the O(αs ) PDF counter terms that case μ = m(t t¯) is visible.
stabilise the μ f dependence. Thus, without photon-initiated In conclusion, the impact of the photon PDF and also its
contributions, the μr and μ f dependences of LO QCD and dependence on the scale choice should be in general taken
of NLO EW are the same; it is different for QCD . This can into account for the determination of the theory uncertainties.
be clearly seen in the left plot of Fig. 18, where in addition
to the QCD+EW /QCD ratio in the third inset we included
also the (LO QCD +EW )/LO QCD ratio,14 where the scale
dependence is the same in the numerator and the denom- 6 Conclusions and outlook
inator. On top of this, as anticipated in the last point in
Sect. 3, gg, q q̄ and gγ luminosities have a different depen- In this work we studied the impact of EW corrections and
dence on μ f . Moreover, at LO the gγ channel contributes photon-induced contributions on top-quark differential di-
only to LO EW , which features only one power of αs and stributions at 8, 13 and 100 TeV. We compared predictions
thus a different dependence on μr w.r.t. LO QCD . While the with two different modern PDF sets including the photon
Sudakov logarithms are negative and proportional to the gg density and DGLAP evolution at NLO QCD + LO QED accu-
racy: the CT14QED and NNPDF2.3QED PDF sets. While contri-
14
butions due to the photon PDF are negligible with CT14QED,
It is worth to note that without photon PDF this ratio corresponds to
this is not the case for NNPDF2.3QED, where such contribu-
the NLO EW K -factor, K EW ≡ (LO QCD + NLO EW )/LO QCD ,
which can also be seen as the ratio QCD×EW /QCD , where tions at 13 TeV are sizeable and are affected by large PDF
QCD×EW ≡ LO QCD × K QCD × K EW is the multiplicative com- uncertainties. At high pT (t) and m(t t¯), the photon-induced
bination of results at NLO QCD and EW accuracy and we have defined contributions can compensate the negative contributions of
as usual K QCD = QCD /LO QCD . Thus the second and third insets in
Sudakov logarithms or even change the sign of the EW cor-
the left plot can be seen as a comparison of QCD+EW and QCD×EW .
On the other hand, the inclusion of gγ -channels in LO EW , such as rections. Furthermore, we have shown that such a compen-
in the right plot, invalidates the previous argument introducing a non- sation strongly depends on the scale choice. In rapidity dis-
negligible contribution to LO EW . tributions, the impact of the gγ initial state is sizeable in the

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479
peripheral region and much larger than NLO EW corrections,
which do not receive large Sudakov enhancements in these
kinematical configurations.
Increasing the energy of the collider, photon-induced
channels become less relevant for a fixed value of pT (t) or
m(t t¯), since smaller values of x are probed and consequently
the quark and gluon PDFs are much larger than the pho-
ton PDF. At 100 TeV, photon-induced channels are impor-
tant only in the very boosted regime ( pT (t)  5 TeV or
m(t t¯)  10 TeV), where Sudakov logarithms are negative
and above the 20% level.
For the same reason, at the LHC photon-induced contri-
butions are relatively larger at 8 TeV than at 13 TeV. We com-
puted their size for the same differential (and normalised) dis-
tributions already analysed by ATLAS and CMS, taking into
account both experimental errors and theory uncertainties.
Data from 8 TeV at large rapidities already appear to be sen-
sitive to the photon PDF; with smaller experimental errors,
as expected at 13 TeV, such a sensitivity may be reached also
at large pT (t) and m(t t¯).
In conclusion, our analyses showed two important points.
First, differential observables in top-pair production, in par-
ticular y(t) and y(t t¯) rapidities, can be used to improve the
determination of the photon PDF within the NNPDF approach.
Second, given the status of the current available PDF sets,
both EW corrections and photon-induced contribution have
to be taken into account for a correct determination of both
central values and uncertainties of theoretical predictions.
The first point is particularly relevant for a future fit with
LHC 13 TeV data at (N)NLO QCD as well NLO QED accu-
racy, which will presumably return a better determination of
the photon PDF and consequently, with smaller uncertainties,
a more solid comparison with the ansatz for γ (x, Q 0 ) used
in CT14QED. The second point suggests also that a priori not
only EW corrections but also photon-induced contributions
may be in general important for processes at the LHC and
must not be neglected. For the case of t t¯ production, given
the experimental precision that has been reached at the LHC
and especially the precision that will be achieved in Run-II,
a combination of higher-order QCD corrections, beyond the
NLO, and EW corrections, including photon-induced contri-
butions, is mandatory for providing a precise and reliable SM
predictions. This is relevant not only for top physics but also
for all the analyses that feature t t¯ production as background,
notably those related to the Higgs boson and new physics.
Acknowledgments First and foremost, we want to thank Michelan-
gelo Mangano for having encouraged us to perform this study and
for his valuable comments. We also thank Valerio Bertone, Stefano
Carrazza, Andrea Giammanco, Fabio Maltoni, Alexander Mitov and
Carl Schmidt for interesting discussions and clarifications on differ-
ent subjects treated in this paper. This work is done in the context of
and supported in part (D.P.) by the ERC Grant 291377, LHCtheory:
Theoretical predictions and analyses of LHC physics: advancing the
precision frontier. I.T. is supported by the F.R.S.-FNRS “Fonds de la
Page 19 of 20 479
Recherche Scientifique” (Belgium) and in part by the Belgian Federal
Science Policy Office through the Interuniversity Attraction Pole P7/37.
M.Z. is supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under the Marie Sklodovska-Curie Grant Agree-
ment No 660171 and in part by the ILP LABEX (ANR-10-LABX-63),
in turn supported by French state funds managed by the ANR within
the “Investissements d’Avenir” programme under Reference ANR-11-
IDEX-0004-02.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecomm
ons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit
to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Funded by SCOAP3 .
References
1. M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, J. Piclum, C. Schwinn, M. Ubiali,
F. Yan, JHEP 07, 194 (2012a). arXiv:1206.2454 [hep-ph]
2. M. Czakon, M.L. Mangano, A. Mitov, J. Rojo, JHEP 07, 167
(2013a). arXiv:1303.7215 [hep-ph]
3. M. Guzzi, K. Lipka, S.-O. Moch, JHEP 01, 082 (2015).
arXiv:1406.0386 [hep-ph]
4. M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252004
(2013b). arXiv:1303.6254 [hep-ph]
5. M. Czakon, D. Heymes, A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 082003
(2016). arXiv:1511.00549 [hep-ph]
6. S. Moch, P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. D 78, 034003 (2008).
arXiv:0804.1476 [hep-ph]
7. N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 232003 (2009).
arXiv:0903.2561 [hep-ph]
8. M. Czakon, A. Mitov, G.F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 80, 074017
(2009). arXiv:0907.1790 [hep-ph]
9. V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B.D. Pecjak, L.L. Yang, JHEP
09, 097 (2010). arXiv:1003.5827 [hep-ph]
10. M. Beneke, P. Falgari, C. Schwinn, Nucl. Phys. B 842, 414 (2011).
arXiv:1007.5414 [hep-ph]
11. N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D 82, 114030 (2010). arXiv:1009.4935
[hep-ph]
12. V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B.D. Pecjak, L.-L. Yang,
JHEP 09, 070 (2011a). arXiv:1103.0550 [hep-ph]
13. V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B.D. Pecjak, L.L. Yang, Phys.
Lett. B 703, 135 (2011b). arXiv:1105.5824 [hep-ph]
14. M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, C. Schwinn, Nucl. Phys. B 855,
695 (2012b). arXiv:1109.1536 [hep-ph]
15. M. Cacciari, M. Czakon, M. Mangano, A. Mitov, P. Nason, Phys.
Lett. B 710, 612 (2012). arXiv:1111.5869 [hep-ph]
16. B.D. Pecjak, D.J. Scott, X. Wang, L.L. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116,
202001 (2016). arXiv:1601.07020 [hep-ph]
17. W. Beenakker, A. Denner, W. Hollik, R. Mertig, T. Sack, D.
Wackeroth, Nucl. Phys. B 411, 343 (1994)
18. J.H. Kuhn, A. Scharf, P. Uwer, Eur. Phys. J. C 45, 139 (2006).
arXiv:hep-ph/0508092 [hep-ph]
19. W. Bernreuther, M. Fuecker, Z.G. Si, Phys. Lett. B 633, 54 (2006a).
arXiv:hep-ph/0508091 [hep-ph]
20. J.H. Kuhn, A. Scharf, P. Uwer, Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 37 (2007).
arXiv:hep-ph/0610335 [hep-ph]
21. W. Bernreuther, M. Fuecker, Z.-G. Si, Phys. Rev. D 74, 113005
(2006b). arXiv:hep-ph/0610334 [hep-ph]
22. W. Bernreuther, M. Fucker, Z.-G. Si, Phys. Rev. D 78, 017503
(2008). arXiv:0804.1237 [hep-ph]
123
479 Page 20 of 20
23. A.V. Manohar, M. Trott, Phys. Lett. B 711, 313 (2012).
arXiv:1201.3926 [hep-ph]
24. J.H. Kühn, A. Scharf, P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. D 91, 014020 (2015).
arXiv:1305.5773 [hep-ph]
25. J.M. Campbell, D. Wackeroth, J. Zhou, Proceedings, 23rd Interna-
tional Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects
(DIS 2015), PoS DIS2015, 130 (2015). arXiv:1508.06247 [hep-ph]
26. W. Hollik, M. Kollar, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014008 (2008).
arXiv:0708.1697 [hep-ph]
27. W. Bernreuther, Z.-G. Si, Nucl. Phys. B 837, 90 (2010).
arXiv:1003.3926 [hep-ph]
28. W. Hollik, D. Pagani, Phys. Rev. D 84, 093003 (2011).
arXiv:1107.2606 [hep-ph]
29. J.H. Kuhn, G. Rodrigo, JHEP 01, 063 (2012). arXiv:1109.6830
[hep-ph]
30. W. Bernreuther, Z.-G. Si, Phys. Rev. D 86, 034026 (2012).
arXiv:1205.6580 [hep-ph]
31. A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling, R.S. Thorne, Eur. Phys.
J. C 39, 155 (2005). arXiv:hep-ph/0411040 [hep-ph]
32. J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mat-
telaer, H.S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, M. Zaro, JHEP 07, 079
(2014). arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]
33. S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H.S. Shao, M. Zaro, JHEP 09,
065 (2014). arXiv:1407.0823 [hep-ph]
34. S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H.S. Shao, M. Zaro, JHEP 06,
184 (2015). arXiv:1504.03446 [hep-ph]
35. R.D. Ball, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guf-
fanti, N. P. Hartland, J. Rojo (NNPDF), Nucl. Phys. B 877, 290
(2013). arXiv:1308.0598 [hep-ph]
36. C. Schmidt, J. Pumplin, D. Stump, C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 93,
114015 (2016). arXiv:1509.02905 [hep-ph]
37. A. Manohar, P. Nason, G.P. Salam, G. Zanderighi, How bright is
the proton? A precise determination of the photon PDF, CERN-
TH-2016-155 (2016). arXiv:1607.04266 [hep-ph]
38. L.A. Harland-Lang, V.A. Khoze, M.G. Ryskin, Photon-initiated
processes at high mass, IPPP-16-67 (2016). arXiv:1607.04635
[hep-ph]
39. C. Collaboration (CMS), (2015)
40. D. de Florian, G.F.R. Sborlini, G. Rodrigo, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 282
(2016a). arXiv:1512.00612 [hep-ph]
41. D. de Florian, G.F.R. Sborlini, G. Rodrigo, (2016b).
arXiv:1606.02887 [hep-ph]
123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:479
42. J.R. Andersen et al. (2016). arXiv:1605.04692 [hep-ph]
43. M. Cacciari, M. Greco, P. Nason, JHEP 05, 007 (1998).
arXiv:hep-ph/9803400 [hep-ph]
44. A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling, R.S. Thorne, Phys. Lett.
B 604, 61 (2004). arXiv:hep-ph/0410230 [hep-ph]
45. S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky,
J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, D. Stump, C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 93,
033006 (2016). arXiv:1506.07443 [hep-ph]
46. S. Chekanov et al. ( ZEUS), Phys. Lett. B 687, 16 (2010).
arXiv:0909.4223 [hep-ex]
47. V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, J. Rojo, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185,
1647 (2014). arXiv:1310.1394 [hep-ph]
48. V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, D. Pagani, M. Zaro, JHEP 11, 194 (2015).
arXiv:1508.07002 [hep-ph]
49. V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, (2016). arXiv:1606.07130 [hep-ph]
50. J. Baglio, L.D. Ninh, M.M. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 88, 113005 (2013).
arXiv:1307.4331
51. J.H. Kuhn, G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. D 59, 054017 (1999).
arXiv:hep-ph/9807420 [hep-ph]
52. D. Pagani, Proceedings, 11th Hellenic School and Workshops
on Elementary Particle Physics and Gravity (CORFU2011), PoS
CORFU2011, 027 (2011). arXiv:1205.6182 [hep-ph]
53. M.L. Mangano et al., (2016). arXiv:1607.01831 [hep-ph]
54. V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C75, 542 (2015).
arXiv:1505.04480 [hep-ex]
55. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D 93, 032009 (2016).
arXiv:1510.03818 [hep-ex]
56. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), (2015). arXiv:1511.04716 [hep-ex]
57. M. Aliev, H. Lacker, U. Langenfeld, S. Moch, P. Uwer,
M. Wiedermann, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 1034 (2011).
arXiv:1007.1327 [hep-ph]
58. L.A. Harland-Lang, A.D. Martin, P. Motylinski, R.S. Thorne, Eur.
Phys. J. C 75, 204 (2015). arXiv:1412.3989 [hep-ph]
59. Measurement of the inclusive and differential tt production cross
sections in lepton + jets final states at 13 TeV, Tech. Rep. CMS-
PAS-TOP-16-008 (CERN, Geneva, 2016)
60. Measurement of the differential
√ cross section for t t̄ production in
the dilepton final state at s = 13 TeV, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-
TOP-16-011 (CERN, Geneva, 2016)